Dynamic TV pictures
 

"Graham." wrote in message
...
On Sun, 3 Nov 2013 22:39:06 -0000, "Max Demian"
wrote:

"Graham." wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 03 Nov 2013 16:25:55 +0000, Bill Wright
wrote:
Max Demian wrote:

Reaction, Luxembourg bandspread, BFO, overdrive, turbo-charger..

Ah the Luxembourg bandspead. Some had a Caroline bandspread, working
between about 198 and 203m, I think.

My Grandma had a Bush LW/MW portable with a 208m preset.

When I was 7 my uncle loaned me one of these

http://www.jamesbutters.com/emerson888vanguard.htm

The UK model has an interesting enhancement. It looked like a MW only
radio, but if the dial was set to one extremes, it switched 1500m

Ah, the combined tuning capacitor and waveband switch. When I were a lad I
bought a pocket tranny kit for £2 which was supposed to have one, but they
had run out and supplied a separate switch and tuner. I never got that to
align properly as the tuner had the wrong characteristics. Pity as it
would
have been quite nice in a black high density polyethylene case.

Then I bought another tranny kit but sent it back as someone else had had
it
first.

They often used to sell dud radios as 'kits' - often radios with
pre-fitted
batteries that had leaked.

Do you remember those Russian "keyring radios"? the description was a
bit optomistic.
One of the mail order firms were offering damaged ones batterys had
leaked, plus a new pair of batteries and a charger.
The radio PCB was was really high density for the time with the
smallest transistors I had ever seen.

Ah! here it is:
http://www.vintage-radio.com/recent-...icrosonic.html

I had a teenier Russian radio than that by mail order in 1969. It measured
1.25" x 1" x 0.25" with a knob on the top that contained the tuning
capacitor. Earphone only of course, but it worked on MW and LW. It was
powered by a button cell, mercury or NiCad rechargeable. It had 6
transistors and a thin-film integrated circuit - like a printed circuit with
resistive and capacitative elements built into it.

--
Max Demian

Dynamic TV pictures
 

In message , Max Demian
writes
"Graham." wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 3 Nov 2013 22:39:06 -0000, "Max Demian"
wrote:

"Graham." wrote in message
...
On Sun, 03 Nov 2013 16:25:55 +0000, Bill Wright
wrote:
Max Demian wrote:

Reaction, Luxembourg bandspread, BFO, overdrive, turbo-charger..

Ah the Luxembourg bandspead. Some had a Caroline bandspread, working
between about 198 and 203m, I think.

My Grandma had a Bush LW/MW portable with a 208m preset.

When I was 7 my uncle loaned me one of these

http://www.jamesbutters.com/emerson888vanguard.htm

The UK model has an interesting enhancement. It looked like a MW only
radio, but if the dial was set to one extremes, it switched 1500m

Ah, the combined tuning capacitor and waveband switch. When I were a lad I
bought a pocket tranny kit for £2 which was supposed to have one, but they
had run out and supplied a separate switch and tuner. I never got that to
align properly as the tuner had the wrong characteristics. Pity as it
would
have been quite nice in a black high density polyethylene case.

Then I bought another tranny kit but sent it back as someone else had had
it
first.

They often used to sell dud radios as 'kits' - often radios with
pre-fitted
batteries that had leaked.

Do you remember those Russian "keyring radios"? the description was a
bit optomistic.
One of the mail order firms were offering damaged ones batterys had
leaked, plus a new pair of batteries and a charger.
The radio PCB was was really high density for the time with the
smallest transistors I had ever seen.

Ah! here it is:
http://www.vintage-radio.com/recent-...icrosonic.html

I had a teenier Russian radio than that by mail order in 1969. It measured
1.25" x 1" x 0.25" with a knob on the top that contained the tuning
capacitor. Earphone only of course, but it worked on MW and LW. It was
powered by a button cell, mercury or NiCad rechargeable. It had 6
transistors and a thin-film integrated circuit - like a printed circuit with
resistive and capacitative elements built into it.

I bought a small tranny in '63, specifically to listen to "Pop Go the
Beatles" at work, and because I left work at 5.15, it was very handy to
listen to the second half while cycling home.

I remember falling off my bike, and smashing it up a bit, so that I
couldn't get the PP3 battery to go inside.

I ended up with a much larger battery wired up from the outside.
--
Ian

Dynamic TV pictures
 

Paul Cummins wrote:

I remember when 200 kHz became 198 kHz.

It was just another example of the Common Market giving us short
measure, like when bottled beer started to come in 7/8 pint bottles.

Bill

Dynamic TV pictures
 

On Wed, 06 Nov 2013 19:21:36 +0000, Bill Wright wrote:

I remember when 200 kHz became 198 kHz.

It was just another example of the Common Market giving us short
measure, like when bottled beer started to come in 7/8 pint bottles.

But not if you'd measured it in metres (not the beer obviously).

Dynamic TV pictures
 

On Wed, 6 Nov 2013 17:28 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
(Paul Cummins) wrote:

In article ,
(Graham.) wrote:

The UK model has an interesting enhancement. It looked like a MW
only
radio, but if the dial was set to one extremes, it switched 1500m

I remember when 200 kHz became 198 kHz.

I don't remember retuning the preset though, it just became very slightly
less bassy.


I jutht remember the thibilanth dithtortion the thollowing morning.

--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%

Dynamic TV pictures
 

On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 17:06:13 +0000, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

Regardless of anything else, the maximum amount of light a TV screen
is physically capable of emitting will be the brightness of the light
source behind the LCD panel, usually a fluorescent lamp or LEDs. The
total power consumption of my TV measures about 75W, and though I'm
not sure what proportion ends up as light, even if all did, that
amount spread over a large screen couldn't show an object looking as
bright as a 75W lightbulb. It's probably a typical value for any flat
screen except a plasma, and you only have to put your hand above a
plasma screen to realise what it's doing with most of the energy it's
consuming.

You can't use a 75W incandescent light bulb as a comparison; you
should be talking about a 75W fluorescent tube. which has the same
technology as the fluorescent back-light.
--
Dave W

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

Dynamic TV pictures
 

On Wed, 06 Nov 2013 23:30:21 +0000, Dave W
wrote:

On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 17:06:13 +0000, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

Regardless of anything else, the maximum amount of light a TV screen
is physically capable of emitting will be the brightness of the light
source behind the LCD panel, usually a fluorescent lamp or LEDs. The
total power consumption of my TV measures about 75W, and though I'm
not sure what proportion ends up as light, even if all did, that
amount spread over a large screen couldn't show an object looking as
bright as a 75W lightbulb. It's probably a typical value for any flat
screen except a plasma, and you only have to put your hand above a
plasma screen to realise what it's doing with most of the energy it's
consuming.

You can't use a 75W incandescent light bulb as a comparison; you
should be talking about a 75W fluorescent tube. which has the same
technology as the fluorescent back-light.

Apart from the fact the former is hot cathode, and the latter cold
cathode.

--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%

Dynamic TV pictures
 

On 06/11/2013 21:32, Graham. wrote:
On Wed, 6 Nov 2013 17:28 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),

I remember when 200 kHz became 198 kHz.

I don't remember retuning the preset though, it just became very slightly
less bassy.


I jutht remember the thibilanth dithtortion the thollowing morning.

Like a fool, I stayed up the night before, to listen to the 200 kHz
carrier drop at 00:40ish I think, it was back up on 198kHz within an
hour ISTR, so I don't know how much advance work was done (or even
possible ?)


--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

Dynamic TV pictures
 

On Wed, 06 Nov 2013 23:30:21 +0000, Dave W
wrote:

Regardless of anything else, the maximum amount of light a TV screen
is physically capable of emitting will be the brightness of the light
source behind the LCD panel, usually a fluorescent lamp or LEDs. The
total power consumption of my TV measures about 75W, and though I'm
not sure what proportion ends up as light, even if all did, that
amount spread over a large screen couldn't show an object looking as
bright as a 75W lightbulb. It's probably a typical value for any flat
screen except a plasma, and you only have to put your hand above a
plasma screen to realise what it's doing with most of the energy it's
consuming.

You can't use a 75W incandescent light bulb as a comparison; you
should be talking about a 75W fluorescent tube. which has the same
technology as the fluorescent back-light.

True, but even a 75W fluorescent lamp isn't as powerful as the Sun,
and those electrical figures are *maximum* amounts, corresponding to a
display screen that is entirely at 100% white level. An object
depicted on that screen will typically only occupy part of it, so even
if it's a peak white object it can only dissipate a fraction of the
maximum possible power.

Rod.